The FightMetric system is based on qualitative and quantitative research into the things that matter most in ending a fight. Its algorithm is based on historical fight data and guided by the following principles:

The goal of every fighter is to end his fight - Only things that win fights and confer advantages should score points. Those that result in more victories score higher.
Defensive maneuvers can't win fights - If all you’re doing is stopping your opponent’s attacks, you’re losing.
It doesn't matter what you strike with, only where you strike to - Measuring the effectiveness of punches versus kicks versus knees independent of target may be interesting, but gives no indication of fight effectiveness.
Not all strikes are created equal - Power matters a great deal. Even a total head strike count means nothing unless you know how many of those strikes were landed with power.
It's what happens after the takedown that matters - With the exception of slams, takedowns are only valuable insofar as they set up more valuable opportunities on the ground. Taking someone down into guard confers only a modest advantage to the fighter in top position.
Focus on the end result - Little things, like body jabs on the ground, will never end a fight, but they do set-up important things like submissions and guard passes. Remember that the submission attempt or successful guard pass will score the points, and that in their absence, those body jabs were worth little.
Damage is not a one-round effect - Cuts, swelling, and tight joint locks end fights both by doctor’s stoppage and by impairing a fighter’s ability to perform. Those effects last the duration of the fight and should be scored as such, not just in the round in which they occur.
Position matters, how you get there doesn't - It’s unimportant what technique a fighter uses to execute a takedown or a guard pass. All that matters is what position that technique leads to.
Grappling actions have equal opposite reactions - The same number of points granted to one fighter for a position change (e.g., gaining mount) must be awarded to the other fighter should he work his way out of it.

This is fightmetric's FAQ

FightMetric Questions

What exactly does FightMetric measure?

FightMetric produces a comprehensive score that measures a fighter’s total effectiveness in a fight that goes to a decision.

What do you mean by “effectiveness?”

The first principle of the FightMetric system is that the goal of every fighter is to end his or her fight. No one should come into a fight aiming for a decision, so a fight ending is the absolute desired effect. When a fight goes to a decision, neither fighter has produced the desired effect. The question then is, how well did the fighter use techniques that have proven effective in ending fights in the past?

Who cares what happened in past fights, isn’t every fight unique?

Every fight is dynamic, but that doesn’t mean it’s unique. The fact that a particular fighter may have won a fight by flying armbar does not change the fact that flying armbars are not a particularly effective way to end a fight, which is to say, very few fighters have been successful in ending fights with that technique.

What techniques does the FightMetric system track?

Strikes are tracked based on position (striking distance, clinch, ground), target (head, body, legs) and power (power strikes and jabs). Takedowns are tracked by power (regular takedowns and slams). Submissions are tracked in 10 categories that encompass the eight major MMA joint locks and chokes and two categories for miscellaneous locks/cranks and chokes. Guard passes are tracked as improvements both to and from guard, half-guard, side control, mount, and back control. Additional points are awarded for strikes that result in a knockdown and for strikes or submission attempts that cause visible damage. No points are awarded for purely defensive techniques.

How do you decide how much each technique is worth?

The fighters themselves determine the value of specific techniques. Values are tied directly to a database of fight endings. As an example, more fights have ended by kimura over the past few years than in the years preceding them. That being the case, kimuras have become a more effective technique in MMA and the value of kimura attempts has been recalculated accordingly.

Doesn’t this system favor (strikers/wrestlers/submission grapplers) over other styles?

The system favors those that work to end their fights. MMA has proven remarkably equitable to fighters of all styles. Nearly as many fights end by strikes as by submission and the gap between fights ending on the feet versus on the ground is not as wide as most would think. Therefore, the values determined by the historical data provide a level playing field to fighters of all disciplines.

Except for lay-and-pray fighters…

Exactly.

What about fights that end and don’t go to a decision?

The stats on strikes, accuracy, takedown and submission success rates, and guard passes can be used to evaluate any MMA fight. You can also check out our Total Performance Rating, which is applicable to any fight.

StrikeScore Questions
What do you mean by “Striking Distance?”

This is the name used for the usual stand-up fighting distance, known affectionately as toe-to-toe.

Why not measure the different kinds of strikes, like punches, kicks, elbows, and knees?

The data on that would be very interesting to have when scouting a fighter, but it wouldn’t shed any light on a fighter’s effectiveness in a specific fight. A high kick and a leg kick don’t accomplish the same goal, so lumping them together provides little useful information. That said, a knockout from a left high kick is worth the same as a knockout from a right hook. The common denominator in those cases is the target of the strikes, in both cases, the head.

How can you tell what is a power strike versus what is a jab?

In the clinch and on the ground it’s very easy. You can usually tell by the distance created between the fighters. Punches without distance rarely count as power shots. At striking distance the telltale signs are punch form. Uppercuts, for instance, are rarely thrown as jabs. In general, scoring errs on the side of caution and is judicious in counting strikes as power strikes unless it’s clear what the intent was.

How do you score strikes when one fighter is on the ground and the other is standing up?

Techniques are categorized by the location of the target, rather than the location of the fighter attempting the technique. So a fighter raining down punches while standing in his opponent’s guard is categorized as employing ground and pound, while a grounded fighter who knocks out his standing opponent with an upkick is considered to have gotten a knockout on the feet.

What is the purpose of measuring jabs in the clinch and on the ground, given that they will almost never end a fight themselves?

Scores for close-distance jabs are minimal, but become important when one fighter lands a distinctly higher volume of them than his opponent. In that case, the jabs can be seen as a way of measuring how much each fighter was “keeping busy.”

Why do you award extra points for knockdowns?

A knockdown is the single event that most frequently results in a fight ending. It is also a pretty good indicator of strike effectiveness.

GrappleScore Questions

If defense doesn’t win fights, why do you award points for getting out of positions like mount?

The system awards points for positional improvements that confer an advantage in winning the fight. If someone mounted gets back to guard, that doesn't need to be viewed as defensive. The positional change is an improvement that allows that fighter to be more effective in winning his fight.

Why don’t you award points for defending takedowns?

Defending a takedown is not a positional improvement. It is a technique used to maintain the current position. Keeping the fight on the feet may be more advantageous for the defending fighter, but he hasn’t put himself in a better position that he was in before.

Does a takedown into side control score more than a takedown into guard?

Yes. All takedowns are scored as if they are into guard, but a takedown into side control would score as an advance to side as well.

Why do you track clinch takedowns versus takedown shots?

They are scored exactly the same. The only reason they are tracked separately is to split techniques between striking distance and the clinch.

Damage Questions

Why do you award extra points for damage?

Like knockdowns, damage is a visible indicator of effectiveness. In addition, damage is an effective method of ending fights, either by doctor’s stoppage, or by negatively impacting the hurt fighter’s performance.

How do you award points for damage?

The number of points awarded for damage is variable, based on the fighter’s overall striking or grappling effectiveness. This rewards fighters who are the most effective and avoids overvaluing lucky shots that cause cuts.

How do you deal with the fact that some fighters are harder or easier to cut or knock down?

Damage and knockdowns are not a measure of effort, but rather of effectiveness. If a heavy strike that would knock down one opponent can’t floor a fighter with a great chin, then that strike was less effective against the hard-headed fighter.

General Questions

What is the point of all of this?

Having statistics will hopefully raise the level of discourse on MMA and grant it some more legitimacy. As a rule, sports are governed by numbers. It’s difficult to talk about a sport intelligently without any sort of numbers to inform discussion. Comparisons can be nothing but subjective until someone comes up with a way to quantify performance. MMA currently does not have any information past the simple win-loss columns.

That is how fight metric scores the fight. Saying that if someone thought the fight was close is bias is stupid Dave. Do I think Serra won, no, but was it a close fight, yes. Close fights do not have to be split dec. Rua lost a unanimous dec to Machida but the fight was still close. The headbutt happened in round 1 but unless the judges saw the headbutt, which happened very quickly and was hard to see, that round has to be scored for Serra. Round 2 Matt took Serra down and dominated (19-19 so far). Round 3 was close, both Matt and Serra got takedowns and the striking totals were close. There is no way this fight was the one sided beat down you act like it was.

And with all due respect it was not a close fight either.. I am in the middle of you and Dave...

I dont think so. There is really no point in a rematch. It would be one thing if they were both very close to a title shot but that is not the case. I think in both cases the best bet is for them to take on a fighter in the top 10.